Rescuing Human Rights from Human Beings

"La Scapagliata," by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1500

The whole civilized world takes the notion of "human rights" for granted. Ask an American if he or she has rights and a doctor's hammer below the knee couldn't provoke such an instant and reflexive response. “Of course I have rights!” (Why would you even ask?) Probe a little bit deeper and ask one of those obnoxious "why" questions and you may possibly get "It's in the Constitution." Pursue it further and ask if it would be okay if a Constitutional amendment took away a right like the freedom of speech. You'll either get stony silence or, if this pedestrian is unusually clever (or unusually good at parroting his professors), an appeal to "humanity." People have human rights because they're human beings. It's circular, of course, but, then, didn't Plato believe that the circle was the most perfect of shapes?

Fantastic as it sounds, we're supposed to believe that this rights-by-virtue-of-humanity argument is sufficient.The only problem with it is that an individual who is the sole owner of his rights (as opposed to being “endowed” with his rights) can forever give them away if he or she so chooses – and if history is any guide, he or she often so chooses. Rights that can be given away at whim are, in reality, no rights at all. The government may as well have absolute jurisdiction if it only refuses to infringe on its citizens’ rights when it’s convenient. An even more fundamental problem with basing rights in humanity itself is our era’s postmodernism. You’re telling me there’s no such thing as absolute right and wrong, but an African tribesman still has an absolute right to food, water and condoms? The absurdity is self-evident and goes a long way in explaining why nothing akin to individual rights was ever recognized until the coming of Christianity, and has receded whenever and wherever the tides of the Gospel have ebbed.

One would think this would be obvious to anyone who bothered to take the most cursory glance at the historical record. Even ancient Greece and Rome, where conceptions of humanistic individualism reached their zenith, had no such concept as individual rights. Plato spoke of the importance of the polis as the source of a kind of communitarian right. Romans emphasized the freedom granted by a just legal system. One searches ancient laws in vain for anything resembling our modern versions of individual rights. Slavery was never prohibited anywhere in the ancient world; in fact, it served as the fundamental basis of those societies. Plato and Aristotle both believed that certain people were meant to be slaves by their very nature. The rest of the world was even worse. Most non-Western languages don't even have a word for freedom.

Only with the coming of Christianity did people begin to recognize that all of mankind is made in the imago dei – the image of God—and therefore deserving of certain rights. In the words of the Apostle Paul in Colossians 3, “there is no Gentile or Jew…barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Christians in early Rome shocked their pagan rulers by adopting the children Romans left out in the elements to die. Over the centuries, Christianity persistently eroded the philosophical underpinnings that had allowed slavery to survive. Significantly, the first widespread movement against the slave trade began, not under the auspices of Platonists, but under a Christian queen of France, Bathilda. Charlemagne was opposed to slavery; Pope Callistus himself had been a slave. Abogard, Anselm and Wulfstan and other luminaries of the medieval church all campaigned against the existence of the institution. As Rodney Stark has written, “The theological conclusion that slavery is sinful has been unique to Christianity.”

The Protestant Reformation’s rediscovery of the believer’s direct relationship to God launched a whole new inquiry into individual rights, particularly vis a vis government. If an individual is justified by his or her faith and not by physically going through a sacrament, the logic went, then no person can force salvation on another. This led to the formal enumeration of the right of conscience, and by logical extension, the rights of speech and the press, where conscience was expressed, challenged and forged. Religious thinkers like the Protestant theologian Hugo Grotius applied the principles of Christianity when theorizing about international law. Regardless of culture, government or race, people everywhere possessed certain rights because they possessed a common Creator. In the 17th century, John Locke’s theory of government went so far as to assert that political bodies are instituted for the express purpose of protecting the God-given rights of individuals. From here it was a short step to the Declaration of Independence. The distinctly Christian idea of human rights now also became a part of civic religion, with all the mixed blessings that entailed.

All our modern ideas on this subject can therefore be traced back to Christian theology, which alone has birthed, and can alone sustain, so sweeping an idea as the dignity of the entire human race. It’s all too easy to view this Christian accomplishment in a vacuum, as many American do today. Most people have never considered that humanitarianism, foreign aid, abolition and systematic resistance to tyranny have only ever existed in countries touched by Christianity. As Christianity fizzles out in this country, we should expect to see our ideas of human rights—already so twisted, mutable and vacuous that we call abortion a fundamental right—die out, too.

The Manhattan Purchase and Multiculturalism

Who hasn't heard the story of the infamous Manhattan Purchase? It goes something like this: In 1626, a group of West India Company merchants led by Peter Minuit swindled Manhattan out of the hands of its natives for a mere $24. Like the legends of George Washington and the cherry tree, the glories of the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Kennedy family, this story has been subsumed into our Western consciousness in all its misinterpreted glory. The next time someone tells it the way you've heard it before, keep these facts in mind:

The Dutch currency of the 17th century was the guilder. To estimate the value of what Minuit was offering the natives for their land in contemporary terms, a New York historian converted guilders into dollars and came up with the figure $24. The problem is that this was calculated 165 years ago. Since then, the value of your dollar has gone down more than 99%, and what was $24 then would now be worth almost $2400. Add to this the extreme cheapness of unsettled land in a continent still bursting with it, and you may begin wondering who was swindling whom. It gets better. The natives of the northeast were known to make bead-like pieces out of seashells to use as jewelry and currency.The time and labour involved in carving and filing the shells into these decorative pieces was immense. As a result, each individual “bead” was worth a small fortune. When the Dutch offered hundreds of beads as part of their payment for the land, the natives suddenly found themselves exorbitantly enriched. If I were faced with the choice of either continuing to squat on my undeveloped land, or moving into the vast interior with overflowing coffers, I would have done just like the natives did. Maybe that's just me.

The irony of this story isn't only how it's been misconstrued, it's what it says about our multiculturalist mentality. In the name of protecting oppressed minorities we presume to think for them. We know what's in their best interest, whether it's what they want or not. In this case, we assume that the natives must have been extremely gullible to willingly sell the Dutch their land, when in fact they were making a rational decision to "get rich quick." Similarly, we don't think that Jews who vote Republican can be true Jews. Female politicians can't be touched - unless they're pro-life. Blacks who frequent tea parties have been misled by conservatives. Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes and other African-Americans can't have made an intelligent decision to embrace free markets, they must have been beguiled by the white establishment. The multiculturalists insist that all these exceptions to their heavy-handed rule are simply naive individuals. In the end, who's truly naïve? At least the arrogance of the “white man's burden” vilified the native cultures alone. In its contemptuous disdain for universal truth, postmodernity vilifies both the white man's culture and the native's intelligence.